Culture War Archives - Page 1144 of 1153

Back to the Future – Gay Marriage

January 11, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News/by Lamarre Notargiacomo

The Roman Empire was “ahead of its time,” establishing slavery-pedophilia and same-sex unions as the norm. Nero, the Roman emperor married at least two men in lavish public ceremonies, wearing a veil, and all the appearances of a traditional wedding: “dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses.” According to Craig Turner, the Roman historian, Tacitus, described Nero’s engaging in coitus with the “groom” in full view of the wedding guests. He further described Nero’s deeds as engaging in “every filthy, depraved act, licit or illicit.”

During his infamous reign, Nero also rounded up Christians and tied them to stakes, burning them to light his garden. His penchant for violence included countless brutal executions, including that of his own mother. Not surprisingly, he committed suicide in 68 AD.

Gary DeMar sums up our current dilemma perfectly, when he says, “What stopped the moral disintegration was the spread of Christianity. It’s frightening to think that today, many Christians have sided with Nero.”

Traditional marriage and gay marriage are mutually exclusive and to remain silent is complicity. 41 states have voted to protect traditional marriage, but the “progressive” media, “emperor” Obama, and a handful of unelected Supreme court justices, are hell bent on forcing their will upon the American people.

The Book of books, outlining the structure for a well ordered civil society, and upon which our country was built, has given us the most prosperous and free country in history. People from all over the world have risked their lives to participate in our 200 + year “experiment” called liberty.

We have special protections for every segment of society, written into law, EXCEPT for Christians and heterosexuals. Will history repeat itself, or will we rise up and declare that we are, now and always, a Christian nation?

French Court Bans Performances of Anti-Semitic Comic Dieudonné

January 10, 2014/in Culture War, News/by Jerry Gordon

Pictured: French Anti-Semitic Comic Dieudonne’ and French Soccer star Nicolas Anelka in Nazi-like quenelle salute

French Court of the State re imposed a ban on the performance of controversial comic Dieudonne’ within minutes of an administrative tribunal decision in Nantes lifting it. Dieudonné was in the midst of a tour of several major French cities, despite having over 9 convictions with penalties of $80,000 for violating French hate laws. These violations are regarding his comments about the Holocaust and Jewish personalities that some, including his former Jewish comic sidekick, consider Anti-Semitic. His performance in Nantes had been banned by a local French government official in furtherance public order issued by French Interior Minister Manuel Valls, Tuesday. Valls said today:

“This is a political battle and not just a legal one. We must not let these intolerable statements go unanswered.” The Socialist politician said Dieudonné’s anti-Semitic and racist outbursts were “not an opinion, but a felony” and underlined that “the action I have undertaken has the advantage of mobilizing everyone, including the offices of the State.”

On Tuesday French President Hollande said:

I am calling on all representatives of the state, particularly its prefects, to be on alert and inflexible. No one should be able to use this show for provocation and to promote openly anti-Semitic ideas.

A World Jewish Congress (WJC) report noted:

Earlier this week, Interior Minister Valls said racial and anti-Semitic remarks in Dieudonné’s show were legal infractions and “no longer belong to the artistic and creative dimension”. In a three-page circular letter sent on Monday to prefects and mayors across France, Valls said that the show contained “disgraceful and anti-Semitic words toward Jewish personalities or the Jewish community” and “virulent and shocking attacks on the memory of victims of the Holocaust.”

[…]

World Jewish Congress Vice-President Roger Cukierman, the head of the French Jewish umbrella body CRIF, told ‘France Info’ radio on Tuesday morning that he was satisfied that the French government had now acted. He called on French citizens to speak out against Dieudonné’s anti-Semitism. “No, France is not an anti-Semitic country, but therefore, one has to put stop to [Dieudonné’s] actions and prosecute him wherever possible.” Cukierman is among eight persons and institutions against who Dieudonné has threatened a defamation suit.

Even a right wing Political Leader, Marnie Le Pen of the National Front, expressed “shock’ at Dieudonné’s behavior in remarks to Le Figaro, although hedging that perhaps the French government may have gone too far with this ban.

Much of the controversy surrounding Dieudonne arises from his use of an alleged pro-Nazi gesture, the quenelle. The WJC report noted:

The ‘quenelle’ gesture – holding one hand to the chest or shoulder, with the other extended rigidly downward, [is] like a lowered Nazi salute. Dieudonné’s companion Noémie Montagne has patented the gesture, as well as the use of its name for beverages, a television network and a public relations company.

The quenelle gesture was used by Nicolas Anelka, French Soccer star of the West Bromwich Albion English Premier League Soccer, team when scoring goals in a West Ham match. Anelka Tweeted: “This gesture was a special dedication to my friend Dieudonné.”That gave rise to a Tweet from French Sports Minister, Valerie Fourneyron, who called it “Provocative”. A WJC report cited European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor urging football’s governing bodies to punish Anelka as if he “had made the infamous outstretched arm salute” of the Nazis.

Dieudonné’s loyal followers believe today’s legal battles, denied him free speech. In the US it could e considered protected speech under the First Amendment upheld under several Supreme Court decisions, beginning with the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision in 1969.

Prior to the reinstatement today of the ban by the French Court of State, Dieudonné’s counsel Jacques Verdiersaid was cited by AFP hastily saying:

The judge’s ruling amounted to a “total victory”. A statement from the court said it did not regard the show as having “an attack on human dignity as its main object”.

Over 5,600 held tickets to the performance at the Zenith Theater in Nantes. Mayors in Bordeaux, Marseilles and Tours have banned Dieudonne’s performances in response to the order from French President Hollande and Interior Minister Valls.

Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala is the son of a French mother and Cameroonian father. He has made a career engaging in anti-Semitic references about the Holocaust, international Jewish control and inventing a Nazi-like gesture, the quenelle, mimicked by his followers. He has courted both far-right and far-left groups, as well as African and Muslim émigré communities in France. Dieudonné had a Jewish partner, Eli Semour, on TV and live performances. Dieudonné would appear in a KKK white sheet costume, while Semour would be decked out in a Nazi SS uniform. That was years ago. Now Semour is appalled at the depths of his former partner’s anti-Semitic routines.

One example of Dieudonne’s attacks on Jewish personalities was the case of French radio personality Patrick Cohen. The Wall Street Journal in its coverage of the most recent Dieudonné contretemps reported:

The latest controversy began last month, when state television channel France 2 broadcast footage captured by a hidden camera and showing Dieudonné commenting about French-Jewish radio anchor Patrick Cohen during a private performance.

“Me, you see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself: Gas chambers…too bad,” the comedian was shown saying on stage. Dieudonné’s lawyers don’t dispute the video’s veracity.

Dieudonné’s remarks followed a previous remark by Mr. Cohen on a TV show that he was against hosting a number of “sick brains” in his morning radio shows, listing Dieudonné among others.

Later in December, Paris prosecutors said they had launched a preliminary probe against Dieudonné. In a TV interview, Mr. Cohen said he wouldn’t comment on the legal process. Dieudonné says the latest episode shows that France’s mainstream media has double standards over alleged racism.

“When it’s about blacks, people laugh, nobody bothers even though the pain and the misery are at least as deep,” Dieudonné said in a video posted on his YouTube channel.

Coinciding with this breaking news on Dieudonné and rising French Antisemitism, we interviewed yesterday Michel Gurfinkiel. He is French journalist, author, founder and President of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, a conservative think-thank in France. He is a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Among issues covered in the conversation were French Jewry, rising anti-Semitism, French government initiatives and multi-cultural and Muslim émigré problems including the current controversy over Dieudonné.

At one point in our conversation we discussed a separate initiative by the Hollande government that was controversial. This was a draft posted on the government’s website directed at cultivating the anti-racist, African and Muslim émigré voting constituencies. The draft fostered recognition of multi-cultural origins of these groups effectively denying integration with French history, language and cultural values. The ruckus the proposal caused led to the withdrawal of the draft. Gurfinkiel characterized it as one more step towards national suicide. Meanwhile, he noted that young French Jews are increasingly committed towards aliyah to Israel, while others are moving into predominately safer Christian areas in France. As Gurfinkiel put it, French Jewry, transformed by Holocaust survivors and émigrés expelled from former French Muslim possessions and other Islamic countries, feel threatened. The Dieudonné episode is another expression of that threat.

Look for more insights from Gurfinkiel in our interview with him in the February 2014 edition of the NER.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Debunking 5 Common Arguments for Homosexuality

January 9, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, News/by Alex McFarland

Whenever a person of high visibility dares express disagreement with homosexuality, several things will happen, and of this you may be sure: 1) Other celebrities will be quick to react with horror, disavowing the person and their remarks; 2) Whatever professional entities with which the person is associated (corporate/political/entertainment/sports) will go public with a carefully worded promise to appropriately “deal” with the individual and the situation; and 3) Cries of “homophobic” will be heaped on the person who spoke blasphemy against this key doctrine of our State religion, “Hyper-tolerant, Enforced-When-Necessary, Relativism.”

It matters not on what grounds one’s disagreement with homosexuality is based: A person may disagree with the homosexual agenda for moral, religious, philosophical, sociological, academic, or medical reasons; It doesn’t matter. According to most currently holding seats of cultural leadership, any and all disagreement is rooted in homophobia. Bill O’Reilly’s recent castigation of Phil Robertson is a case in point, though nothing in Robertson’s remarks indicated that his convictions and opinions about this moral and spiritual issue are borne out of fear. The campaign to “mainstream homosexuality at any cost” is an equal opportunity accuser: No matter who you are, no matter how logical your reasoning, dissent on this issue is homophobia.

If, like Phil Robertson, you reference the Bible in your opposition to homosexuality, news shows will bring on a religion “expert” to explain that your take on Scripture is wrong (The Bible doesn’t really say that homosexual sex is a sin; Those ancient pages speaking of God and His Word as unchanging and fixed, somehow just must have meant “eternal” when speaking of His love, yet “temporary” and “changing” when speaking of revealed moral boundaries). Big media,long ago sold out to the gay agenda, does not let appeals to Scripture go unchallenged. But scholarly spin can’t eradicate the fact that Scripture speaks with unmistakable clarity regarding human sexuality and marriage. And without question, the Bible presents same-sex activity as being sinful.

Sound Reasoning That Supports Biblical Truth

While I believe that compelling lines of evidence point to the inspiration and authority of Scripture, I know that many people today don’t view the Bible as authoritative (just quote the Bible on most college campuses, and you will quickly learn this firsthand). But even apart from Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality, there are compelling extra-biblical arguments against homosexuality. Let’s examine the typical arguments for homosexuality, and we’ll weave in arguments from the opposing camp as we go.

“Homosexuality Doesn’t Harm Anyone”

Those who support the view that homosexuality does not cause any harm are really basically saying, “Mind your own business!” According to this position, homosexuality harms no one and, therefore, is perfectly acceptable. But if it can be demonstrated that homosexuality does have negative results, then the claim that it doesn’t harm anyone is false. Those who oppose homosexuality add that homosexuality does cause harm, especially when it comes to the spiritual condition of the person in question.

“Consenting Adults Can Do What They Want”
Proponents of homosexuality often claim that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice between consenting parties. But this claim is sort of just another way of stating the homosexuality-doesn’t-harm-anyone argument. As has been explained, though, it’s possible that it does cause harm, to individuals and to culture. It should be added that given moral law, consensual behavior does not automatically mean that the behavior is morally valid.

“Morality Can’t Be Legislated”

Supporters of homosexuality typically argue that morality cannot be legislated—there is no point in trying to legislate morality, so don’t bother. But anyone with any sense of what’s going on in the world— anyone who even only occasionally listens to the news—knows that in some way someone is always trying to legislate morality. People only consider any given piece of legislation worthwhile, however, if it encourages a version of morality that they support! And if morality can’t be legislated, then homosexual activists shouldn’t bother trying to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Homosexuals Can’t Escape Genetics”

Some supporters of homosexuality argue that some people are simply born with homosexual tendencies and no matter what they do, they can’t change that fact, so leave them alone and stop trying to “cure” them and branding them as deviant. But there are serious problems with the theory that homosexuality is genetic rather than learned. For example, if homosexuality is genetic, how have the responsible genes been passed from generation to generation? After all, homosexuals can’t pass anything on because they don’t reproduce. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is fixed from birth, why do some homosexuals switch to heterosexuality or bisexuality?

“Opponents to Homosexuality are Just Intolerant and Narrow-Minded”

Some supporters of homosexuality accuse those who oppose homo- sexuality of simply being out of touch, bigoted and prejudiced. This, though, really isn’t an argument in favor of homosexuality. Rather, it’s a sentiment that suggests that opponents to homosexuality are unwilling to share their freedom. Unfortunately, this neglects the question of truth. The question isn’t about whether a particular emotional reaction to a particular behavior is correct but whether or not the particular behavior is right, given the available evidence.

Historically speaking, for example, every single culture that has compromised the traditional view of the family, embracing practices such as homosexuality, has not survived. Based on this evidence alone, a case can be made for the traditional view—opposition to homosexuality—simply on the basis of historical evidence.

The Importance of Standing for Truth

How important is it that our nation rediscover the Biblical position on moral issues (such as homosexuality)? Extremely so, because the souls of people hang in the balance. Further, aberrant views about sexuality and the nature of family that rising generations hear in state-run classrooms are reinforced by influential celebrities. The rigorous (but necessary) work of meaningful discourse is obstructed when talking heads like Bill O’Reilly paint all opposition with the single-brush accusation of “homophobia.”

As our nation wrestles with this issue–and as well-funded, well-organized, tireless propagandizers condition the culture to embrace homosexuality–we’d do best to approach one another with love, gentleness and respect as we share what makes the most sense in light of God’s Word (and good sense).

EDITORS NOTE: Adapted from Alex McFarland’s 15th and newest book, “10 Issues that Divide Christians,” published by Regal Books, Ventura, California, available January 2014. Dr. Alex McFarland is an author, evangelist, educator and broadcaster. He has spoken in more than 1400 churches, and on more than 150 universities and school campuses. He is founder of the Alliance for the Preservation of Christianity in America. Learn more at: www.alexmcfarland.com

Trail Life USA Announces New Staff for 2014

January 8, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Trail Life USA is kicking off 2014 with additional staff for the long-anticipated rollout of their exciting national youth outdoor adventure program.

Mark Hancock, a founding Board Member.

Mark Hancock, a founding Board Member and the Host/Director of Trail Life USA‘s Inaugural National Convention in September, steps into the role of Chief Operating Officer. He will oversee Trail Life USA’s operations, currently virtual. He began his career founding a national advertising agency and holds two Masters Degrees in the Mental Health Counseling field, having spent a number of years in private practice, and has taught at secular and Christian colleges. An award-winning writer and international conference speaker, he lives with his wife and two sons in Port Orange, Florida. “I’m excited about the energy behind Trail Life USA, and the great future it holds for raising godly men. Our leadership team is strong and committed to building and maintaining an excellent program. Boys will love the adventure; parents will love the Christ-honoring character and leadership focus,” Hancock said.

Interim Executive Director Rob Green (SC)

Interim Executive Director Rob Green (SC) will shed the “interim” title to serve as the National Director of Field Operations. Rob stated, “Trail Life USA is moving forward in the right direction. The Board and staff are positioned to grow and oversee a thriving and life-impacting program. I am honored to be a part of developing a national movement of this magnitude.”

General Counsel Richard Mathews (TX)

General Counsel Richard Mathews (TX) retains his title, but adds “National Director of Administration” to his list. His extensive legal and operational background in the field brings a wealth of experience. “I feel incredibly blessed to be a part of a program where I can contribute to teaching youth strong values in an adventure-filled program with others equally committed to the timeless values upon which this nation was built.”

Other staff additions include Laura Burton (FL), National Program Coordinator; Carolyn Culbertson (SC), National Field Support Coordinator; Eric Dickens (FL), Executive Assistant to COO, and finance support personnel.

The newest tool in our box is the Troop Locator.

This is designed to let you know where Troops are popping up. Many of these are in the chartering stage, which means they are completing their background checks or Child and Youth Safety Training so, for safety purposes, we can’t give you all the details. But if you’d like them to contact you when they are ready, leave your information.

If there is not a Troop where you want one, consider chartering or, at least, leave your information and someone will contact you when there is interest or a team begins to develop.

Here’s the link: Troop Locator

ABOUT TRAIL LIFE USA

Trail Life USA is a Christian adventure, character, and leadership program for young men. The K-12 program centers on outdoor experiences that build a young man’s skills and allow him to grow on a personal level and as a role model and leader for his peers. Living the Trail Life is a journey established on timeless values derived from the Bible.

Christian Alternative to the Boy Scouts of America Launched

January 2, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

On Wednesday, January 1, 2014, Trail Life USA (TLUSA) officially launched its outdoor adventure program for boys and young men nationwide. TLUSA is a Christian scouting-like program for boys and young men ages 5-24. The program focuses on outdoor adventure, character, and leadership and is starting with approximately 500 troops in 42 states.

Trail Life USA is being birthed on the same day that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) officially implements its new membership policy of allowing “open and avowed” homosexual youth in their program. Around 60% of the new members of TLUSA are former members of the BSA and 40% have no BSA background.

Adults members of TLUSA are required to sign a Christian statement of faith and values, undergo Child and Youth Safety Protection Training, submit to background checks, and provide letters of recommendation from pastors that know the applicants.

However, the program will have an inclusion policy for youth members and will welcome families with boys from all faiths (or no faith) to participate in this unapologetically Christian outdoor adventure program.

TLUSA Chief Operating Officer, Mark Hancock, commented, “We could not be more excited about the organic growth and the explosion of interest we are seeing every day all across the country. There is a real need for a program that parents can trust to help them guide their sons to honor God, lead with integrity, serve others, and experience outdoor adventure.”

Chairman of the TLUSA Board, John Stemberger, is an Eagle Scout and a former scoutmaster with the BSA. He had two sons in Boy Scouts last year and removed them from the program. Describing the Trail Life USA program to parents and pastors Stemberger has stated, “This is not another church program to compete with Bible studies or youth groups. TLUSA is a masculine outdoor program that has the potential to change a young man’s life forever. Boys will love the fun and adventure-parents will love the focus on character and leadership.”

For more information, or to sign up to become a member or leader within Trail Life USA, go to www.TrailLifeUSA.com.

Billy Graham’s son Franklin: Homosexuality is ‘a sin,’ and ‘I want to warn people’

January 1, 2014/in Culture War, Featured/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

“In a Meet the Press interview Sunday, Franklin Graham, the son of famed preacher Billy Graham, refused to back down from his Biblical stance against homosexuality. “It’s sin,” he said, and added that he wanted to warn people about it because they will have to stand before God who will judge,” Life Site News reports.

The younger Graham was speaking in the NBC interview about his father’s legacy, as the elder Graham, 95, is ‘very weak’ and eating little. He described how he helped to arrange a final sermon for his father that aired in November. He felt it was God’s will that he help his father “finish well.”

In the context of about Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge” comment, Franklin Graham was asked if he would shift his position on “gays.”

“God would have to shift, and God doesn’t,” Graham replied. “God’s word is the same yesterday and today and a million years from now, that it’s sin.”

“To wink at sin, and to tell somebody that it’s okay, I know the consequences of what will happen one day when they have to stand before God,” Graham continued. “I want to warn people.”

But, he added, “I think the Pope is right when he says he is not the judge. He is not the judge. God is the judge.”

Graham’s stance is the same as that of the Catholic Church. A Vatican document on the pastoral care of homosexual persons notes that, “There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.” The document, written under John-Paul II and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict), notes that the Bible “in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.”

That 1986 Vatican document also encourages speaking out on the immorality of homosexual activity as the younger Graham has done. “No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral,” it says.

The document stresses, “we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral.” It adds: “Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

For Graham, it’s also a matter of truth. “I’ve never really been one to try to be politically correct,” he said. “I just feel truth is truth, and sometimes I probably offend some people.”

Click “like” if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

SaveCalifornia.com Urges Rose Parade Boycott: “Live gay wedding” turns parade into political stunt!

December 31, 2013/in Culture War, News/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Don, one of our readers, forwarded this press release to me with the following comment:

I had an initial reaction to the news that the Tournament of Roses was including a float that would be featuring a ‘gay wedding’ live during the Rose parade, but then I got to thinking.

On second thought … I love diversity and it may be time to totally embrace it. Can’t wait until the Rose parade has a float to celebrate bigamy and polygamy once the civil rights of those multi-spousal families get sorted out in court. It will be GREAT. Then, a few more years down the road, I will be totally excited when NAMBLA has a float, and we can watch young boys and their older lovers broadcast all over America in the continuing celebration of diversity. And won’t it be great when there is a BDSM float…we can watch as people whip each other into a sexual frenzy. Can’t wait. Way to go Tournament of Roses. Let’s all look forward to the day when we can TRULY celebrate ALL diversity.

Should you find my comment above offensive, I apologize. Rarely do I send such content via email.

Sacramento, California — A leading pro-family organization, SaveCalifornia.com, is calling for a boycott of the Jan. 1st Rose Parade due to its in-your-face promotion of homosexual “marriage” to children.

But should you find the actions by the Tournament of Roses to be concerning, I encourage you to contact them today to politely share your thoughts. Their direct number is626-449-4100. Additionally, see the attached info below.

“Many parents and grandparents are appalled that the Rose Parade is being turned from a family-friendly parade into an offensive political stunt forced upon children who are watching,”said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which promotes moral virtues for the common good. “SaveCalifornia.com is urging dads, moms and grandparents to boycott the Rose Parade, cancel plans to watch or attend, voice their opposition to tournament officials, and not do business with sponsors listed at tournamentofroses.com.”

“The Rose Parade was founded upon the reality of God’s beautiful creation of flowers and plants that decorate exquisite floats, to the delight of children and families,” Thomasson said. “Now, with a ‘live gay wedding’ on a float, the Rose Parade has turned against God’s natural design of sex and family.”

This year’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation float will feature a “live wedding” between two homosexual men. “Children watching will be taught that homosexual behavior is good and normal, when it’s not biologically based, results in a high rate of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and squashes religious freedom, free speech, and other constitutional rights,” Thomasson said. (Source: SaveCalifornia.com’s “Not Born This Way”)

“The float’s slogan, ‘Love Is The Best Protection,’ is false advertising that hurts children,” Thomasson said. “The fact is, the promotion of homosexual behavior, including same-sex ‘marriages,’ in our culture has increased sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. And male homosexuals in ‘committed’ relationships are notorious for having ‘open relationships,’ which enlarge the circle of transmission.”

DOCUMENTATION FROM MYTH 10 OF “THE TEN TOP MYTHS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY,” PUBLISHED BY FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL (2010):

Myth No. 10: Homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual ones, except for the gender of the partners.

Fact: Homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship, less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner, even if they have one, and are less likely to remain committed for a lifetime, than are heterosexuals.

Homosexual men and women are far less likely to be in any kind of committed relationship than heterosexuals are. A 2006 study by researchers at UCLA concluded: We found that lesbians, and particularly gay men, are less likely to be in a relationship compared to heterosexual women and men. Perhaps the most outstanding finding is also the most simple-that over half of gay men (51%) were not in a relationship. Compared to only 21% of heterosexual females and 15% of heterosexual males, this figure is quite striking.(77)

Secondly, even homosexuals (especially men) who are in a partnered relationship are much less likely to be sexually faithful to that partner.

A Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a “steady partner” had an average of eight sexual partners per year.(78)
A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous. According to study author Barry Adam, “Gay culture allows men to explore different . . . forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”(79)

A 2005 study in the journal Sex Roles found that “40.3% of homosexual men in civil unions and 49.3% of homosexual men not in civil unions had ‘discussed and decided it is ok under some circumstances’ to have sex outside of the relationship. By comparison, only 3.5% of heterosexual married men and their wives agreed that sex outside of the relationship was acceptable.”(80)

Finally, research shows that homosexual relationships tend to be of shorter duration and much less likely to last a lifetime than heterosexual ones (especially heterosexual marriages). A 2005 journal article cites one large-scale longitudinal study comparing the dissolution rates of heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, homosexual couples, and lesbian couples:

On the basis of the responses to the follow-up survey, the percentage of dissolved couples was 4% (heterosexual married couples), 14% (heterosexual cohabiting couples), 13% (homosexual couples) and 18% (lesbian couples).(81)

In other words, the dissolution rate of homosexual couples during the period of this study was more than three times that of heterosexual married couples, and the dissolution rate of lesbian couples was more than four-fold that of heterosexual married couples.(82)

Myth 10 – footnotes:

77 Charles Strohm, et al., “Couple Relationships among Lesbians, Gay Men, and Heterosexuals in California: A Social Demographic Perspective,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, (Aug 10, 2006): 18. Accessed at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p104912_index.html

78 Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

79 Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows,” Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18

80 Sondra E. Solomon, Esther D. Rothblum, and Kimberly F. Balsam, “Money, Housework, Sex, and Conflict: Same-Sex Couples in Civil Unions, Those Not in Civil Unions, and Heterosexual Married Siblings,” Sex Roles 52 (May 2005): 569.

81 Lawrence Kurdek, “Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples?” Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (November 2004): 893.

82 Ibid., 896.

ABOUT SAVECALIFORNIA.COM

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good. We represent children and families in the areas of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

MassResistance helps Jamaica confront “Gay Agenda”

December 29, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by MassResistance

On International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2013, MassResistance went to Jamaica and delivered a stirring speech at a pro-family rally in Kingston, warning citizens about the slippery slope effects that would come with legalizing homosexual behavior, now being considered by the Jamaican government. The speech was broadcast live over national radio.

The homosexual movement wanted to use International Human Rights Day strictly to promote their cause. But these Jamaicans had another plan!

I was the main speaker at the rally, held in Emancipation Park in Kingston by the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS). Over 400 people attended.

I outlined — point by point — the progression that followed once homosexuality was legalized everywhere else — and would surely happen in Jamaica. After legalization comes: gay pride parades; non-discrimination laws; homosexuals’ adoption of children; the homosexual agenda in schools; forcing “gay marriage” on society; public funding to deal with increased homosexual-related social problems; the transgender agenda; large-scale loss of free speech; ban on counseling for kids with homosexual issues; and attacks on churches.

Over four hundred Jamaicans came to the rally Emancipation Park, an evening event before a brightly lit stage.

After the presentation, one Jamaican activist emailed us: “Your arrival here was timely and most appreciated. The feedback from your talk continued on radio the next day and I know that the MC of the show certainly was shocked to discover what has been taking place.”

The Jamaican people are not afraid to wear their religion on their sleeve — or on their shirt!

Besides my keynote speech, the 2½ hour event included songs, dances, and several powerful speeches about morality and God’s laws. The attendees were very enthusiastic and energetic on this issue. At the end of the event, they eagerly commenced a nationwide petition drive to stop the legalization efforts.

As the rally ended, people started gathering signatures on a national petition to keep the current law intact.

By many accounts, the MassResistance speech was a big boost for the pro-family battle going on right now in Jamaica.

Outrage over push to overturn Jamaica’s “Buggery Law”

At issue is a recent push to overturn the country’s 150-year-old law against homosexual behavior. The statute (Sec. 76 of the Crimes Against Persons Act) is universally known in Jamaica as “the Buggery Law,” after the British terminology. Jamaica is one of about a dozen Caribbean countries where anti-sodomy laws are currently on the books.

Prime Minister’s announcement. In early June 2013, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller announced that she is considering having the Parliament take a “conscience vote” on a review of the Buggery Law during the current legislative session which ends March 31, 2014.

This is widely seen as a reaction to growing pressure from the Obama Administration and the Cameron Administration in Britain to force Jamaica to promote “LGBT rights.” This has included threats from both countries to withhold foreign aid to nations like Jamaica that continue to hold the line.

Supreme Court case. In addition, this past June the country’s Supreme Court agreed to hear a case by a homosexual activist claiming that the Buggery Law violates Jamaica’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The case began October 4th and is continuing.

The sense that we get talking to Jamaicans who’ve been following the case closely is that the homosexuals have a very weak legal case and a slim chance of succeeding (unlike in other countries).

Strong pro-family outcry from churches and groups

Jamaica has a very strong religious community, and churches and pro-family groups have been very active in opposing any change to the law. They have seen what has happened in other countries such as the U.S. and fear that this would be the beginning of a total assault on the Jamaican culture.

Compared to the United States and other countries, church groups and pro-family activists have been very outspoken and pretty fearless in opposition to the homosexual agenda. There have been pro-family marches, speeches, media appearances, newspaper ads, and a general political awakening to the issue. Church groups are also directly involved in the Supreme Court case.

Jamaican homosexual movement much weaker than in U.S.

On the other hand, since homosexuality is technically illegal the homosexual groups are relatively weak and not able to intimidate and harass the way they can in other places. Sadly, much of the homosexual movement’s funding and support in Jamaica comes from the US government and also through the United Nations, which outrages many Jamaicans.

In addition, since Jamaica has never had homosexuality pushed in the schools or in their island culture, the public has not been swayed on this issue as in other places.

Public relations war starts

Nevertheless, Jamaican homosexuals have begun a fairly strong public-relations campaign in the media to support repeal of the Buggery Law, with their own op-ed articles, letters to the editor, advertisements, banners, and more. Much of it appears to be funded by various United Nations organizations.

Their main points have included: (1) “Loving” someone else is an international human right. (2) Criminalizing homosexuality causes a stigma and keeps homosexuals from getting “safe sex” help, thus more AIDS is caused. (3) There is violence against homosexuals triggered by the current Buggery Law.

This slick full-page ad by the homosexual movement appeared in Jamaican newspapers, meant to soften the public on the “human rights” and “justice” aspects of repealing the Buggery Law. Note the logos for United Nations-affiliated groups on the bottom, which appear to be funding this campaign.

The pro-family groups and churches strongly dispute all of those points. Among other things, they point out the overwhelming loss of religious freedom and freedom of speech, and the actual statistics on disease. And there is very strong evidence that the overwhelming amount of violence against homosexuals in Jamaica is committed by other homosexuals.

For a larger view click on the chart.

Countering the lies. The Jamaican homosexual movement says that the current Buggery Law causes more AIDS. But the JCHS research reveals that in fact the opposite is true.

JCHS pro-family coalition confronting the “gay PR” campaign!

Much of the pro-family public relations battle has been taken on by the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS). They have been relentless in getting out the truth in the face of a constant flood of disinformation and absurd emotion. In our opinion, JCHS has been a model for the rest of us.

Based in Kingston, they have a fearless and uncompromising attitude, that is all too rare these days on our side. In addition, they have a superb command of the facts and are willing to engage in the often hostile mainstream media, as well as other media.

JCHS energetically covers more ground than almost anyone we’ve seen around the world. Just before Camenker’s visit, the organization released an outstanding 55-minute video that covers the broad range of moral, legal, and medical issues surrounding homosexuality, and also includes man-on-the-street interviews with regular Jamaicans.

VIDEO: This outstanding 55-minute video by JCHS covers the broad range of issues regarding the Buggery Law repeal:

The group’s chairman is Dr. Wayne West, who takes on the destructive medical problems surrounding homosexual behavior and similar issues. There has been a constant effort by the Left to ignore and obfuscate the vast personal and public health effects connected with homosexuality, especially when their political agenda is being pushed. Dr. West cuts through that.

Dr. West has been brilliant in his media work. In this recent newspaper interview,he also takes on the outrageous use of the term “homophobia” to label pro-family citizens as being mentally ill because of their beliefs.

Dr. West fearlessly takes on the issues.

Dr. West has been behind most of the group’s newspaper advertisements and other public statements. At the Emancipation Park rally (see video at top), he introduced Brian Camenker of MassResistance.

The other major JCHS figure is Shirley Richards, an attorney and past president of Jamaica’s Christian Legal Fellowship. She has been outspoken in the media about the legal and moral issues surrounding homosexuality.

She also has excellent media skills. In this recent newspaper op-ed article, Mrs. Richards takes apart the Left’s argument that the Buggery Law is a violation of international human rights.

Great video. Mrs. Richards also unafraid to confront the threats by the United States and Britain to cut off aid to countries who refuse to cave in to the homosexual agenda. In this great (and short) video she stands up to that manipulation and boldly tells the truth about what the homosexual lifestyle will do to a society.

Great video featuring attorney Shirley Richards. She pulls no punches! (4:41)

[NOTE: This was posted on YouTube by a homosexual group!]

Attorney Shirley Richards (left) with Brian Camenker of MassResistance at the December 10th rally.

The Jamaicans are a people with a lot of common sense. Right now, if the buggery law were to be put to a national vote, it would be kept on the books by a wide margin. But people can see that the political pressure is growing, along with the money coming in to persuade and attempt to brainwash the citizens.

The Jamaicans told us over and over again that MassResistance’s message was exactly what they needed to fuel this battle. But to tell you the truth, we got just as much from them. It was a truly wonderful experience being among such fearless and uncompromising pro-family battlers.

ABOUT MASSRESISTANCE

MassResistance officially organized in 1995 as Parents’ Rights Coalition, although it had been active both locally and statewide since 1993. In 2003, under the name Article 8 Alliance, it expanded to issues surrounding the same-sex “marriage” court ruling and its effects in Massachusetts. In 2006, these efforts were consolidated under the new name “MassResistance.” We have been the leading pro-family grassroots activist group in Massachusetts.

The Porn Factor: The Path from Playboy to Sex Offender Is Well Traveled

December 26, 2013/in Culture War, Featured, News, Policy/by Dr. Judith Reisman

In December 1953, Playboy magazine was launched and immediately began normalizing a new world order of autoerotic sexual fantasy. Hugh Hefner (until reading Kinsey in college, a virgin like most single young men) pledged that his “romantic” magazine would turn his “Playboy men” into skillful lovers, readying them for lifelong marriage. Yet his monthly magazine ridiculed virginity and marriage while glamorizing adultery and rape and showing consumers ways to trick women and children into illicit sex.

By 1969, millions of Playboy users, struggling with their unexpected, porn-induced “diminished arousal response,” began eagerly embracing the amplified stimuli offered by Penthouse. This gave us another generation of intimacy and potency challenged men. By 1974, millions of Penthouse users, struggling again with a diminished sexual response, turned to Hustler for help. Hello to yet another generation of arousal-challenged pornography addicts, millions of whom became pushovers for internet pornography. And the addicts were not just grown men. In 1979, psychologist Aaron Hass, in his book Teenage Sexuality, reported that Playboy was commonly sought by juveniles for sex information, advice, values, and mores.

Pornography and Pedophilia

From 1994 to 2007, at least 19 state legislatures in the U.S. passed laws named for a raped and murdered child. In my considered judgment, almost every lust-crime is now energized by pornography. There is plenty of evidence to back me up. For instance, in 1984, FBI Agent Ken Lanning testified about pedophiles’ use of pornography at
a Senate hearing on the “Effect of Pornography on Women and Children”:

Adult pornography is also used, particularly with adolescent boy victims, to arouse and to lower inhibitions … A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced by viewing other children having “fun” participating in the activity … A third major use of child pornography collections is [for] blackmail … If the child threatens to tell his or her parents or the authorities, the existence of sexually explicit photographs can be an effective silencer. The pedophile threatens to show the pictures to parents, friends, or teachers if the child reveals their secret.

John Rabun, then Deputy Director of the National Center for Missing Children, stated at one of the hearings:

100 percent of the arrested pedophiles, child pornographers, pimps, what have you . . . had in their possession at the time of arrest, adult pornography. . . . [It was used] for their own sexual arousal . . . [and] particularly for the pedophiles, was a form of self-validation, “it is OK because I see it in other places. It must be all right, it is published nationally . . .”

On September 16, 1987, before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House of Representatives, legal counselor Alan Sears testified:

In child pornography cases in Los Angeles County, police officers testified that since they began to ask the question, over 95 percent of the children involved in that activity had had pornography used as part of the softening up or the inhibition-lowering process to seduce them and induct them into this activity … [A] substantial number of the men who go on to be abusers were abused children themselves. Pornography plays a significant role in the training of our young people to become sexual abusers.

Detective Lt. Darrell Pope, Commanding Officer of the Michigan State Police Sex Crime Unit, testified at the same hearing:

[I]n 1977, I did a research project where I looked at 38,000 case histories [of sex crimes] and found that 41 percent of those reports indicated that, in fact, pornographic materials were used just prior to or during the actual act. (emphasis added).

Pope interviewed hundreds of sex offenders about their porn use, and “almost to a man,” the reply was: “I used it for one of several reasons: One, to encourage me.” Pope went on:

I can remember talking to one young man who was 19 years old; he said, “It excited me and then I got to thinking about it and I wanted to know how it felt.” … He wanted to know how it felt to rape a woman and kill her … And when we arrested this young man and searched his home, we found a pornographic magazine depicting this very thing that he had done.

Feeding Deviancy

Move up to 1988. In Thrill Killers: True Portrayals of America’s Most Vicious Murderers, Clifford Linedecker wrote:

[M]ost of the killers indulged themselves in violent and sadistic fantasies. Responding to a request to indicate their primary sexual interest, 81 percent of the men put pornography at the top of the list … I found overwhelming evidence of twisted sexual fantasizing, and addiction to pornography in the backgrounds of many of the killers profiled in this book.

By 1990, Dr. W. L. Marshall wrote in Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free, that “there is mounting evidence that in susceptible men, the material [pornography] feeds and legitimizes their deviant sexual tendencies.”

And in 1997, John Douglas, an FBI serial-rape profiler, reported that serial-rape murderers are commonly found “with a large pornography collection, either store-bought or homemade … [O]ur research does show that certain types of sadomasochistic and bondageoriented material can fuel the fantasies of those already leaning in that direction.”
And in 2003, Vernon J. Geberth, former Commanding Officer of the Bronx Homicide Task Force, wrote the following in Sex Related Homicide and Death Investigations, a book that should be required reading for those involved in sex-crime analyses:

[M]any of these pornographic depictions … were actually the road map to the offenses that the perpetrators of sex crimes were committing. . . . [T]he plan was in the pornography . . . [it is] the fuel that acts as a catalyst for fantasy-driven behavior … [P]ornography plays an important part in violent sex crimes.

A Late Warning

Back in 1986, then U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop dubbed pornography a “crushing public health problem … a clear and present danger … blatantly anti-human. … We must oppose it as we oppose all violence and prejudice.” Koop was ignored. We now have the results of three generations of pornography use, arguably sufficient and necessary evidence to get us to start treating all pornography as a clear and present danger, harmful to women and children.

In the summer of 2013, Ariel Castro pled guilty to kidnapping and raping three women whom he held captive in his house in Ohio for a decade. When asked by a judge how good his English was, Castro replied that his comprehension was bad because “my addiction to pornography and my sexual problem has really taken a toll on my mind.” It also took a brutal toll on the lives of three women.

How much more evidence do we need?

Endnotes
1. The nineteen laws are listed in my book Sexual Sabotage (WND, 2010), pp. 299–300.
2. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, Second Session, “Oversight on Pornography, Magazines of a Variety of Courses, Inquiring into the Subject of Their Impact on Child Abuse, Child Molestation, and Problems of Conduct Against Women,” Aug. 8, Sept. 12 and 25, and Oct. 30, 1984 (US Government Printing Office, 1985), Serial No. J-98-133, pp. 43–44.
3. John Rabun, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, 9/12/84, pp. 133–134.
4. https://archive.org/stream/womenviolencelaw00unit/womenviolencelaw00unit_djvu.txt.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Clifford Linedecker, Thrill Killers: True Portrayals of America’s Most Vicious Murderers (PaperJacks, 1988).
8. W. L. Marshall. Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free (Seal Books, 1990), pp. 156–157.
9. John Douglas, Journey Into Darkness (Pocket Star Books, 1997), p. 299.
10. C. Everett Koop, M.D., American Medical News (Oct. 10, 1986).
11. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/justice/ohio-castro/index.html?iref=allsearch.

The Robertson’s of Duck Dynasty Talk About How Their Faith in Jesus Turned Around Their Lives!

December 24, 2013/in Culture War, Video/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

[youtube]http://youtu.be/XP4r4sXmqmo[/youtube]

Phil and Kay Robertson of the hit A&E television program Duck Dynasty, share how their faith in Jesus has been integral to their success! This video is courtesy of the 700 Club on the CBN Network.

Michael W. Chapman writes, “Although some liberal observers criticized Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson’s remarks about homosexual behavior as ‘disgusting’ and ‘vile and extreme stereotypes,’ the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), one of the federal government’s leading health voices, uses nearly identical and even more graphic language in describing some of the sexual practices of male homosexuals.:

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet they are the population most severely affected by HIV,” says the CDC. “Most HIV infections in men are transmitted through sexual contact, especially anal sex.

MassResistance reveals shocking background of judge who ruled against Pastor Scott Lively

December 21, 2013/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Must Read, News/by MassResistance

Federal Judge Michael Ponsor

The federal judge who recently issued a vitriolic 79-page ruling against Pastor Scott Lively has a disturbing background revealing prejudices and improprieties that under federal law should certainly have disqualified him from presiding over the case, MassResistance has discovered. Presiding Federal Judge Michael Ponsor issued the ruling back in August.

As MassResistance has been reporting, Pastor Scott Lively, a well-known pro-family author, theologian, and Christian minister, is currently the target of the most bizarre lawsuit in our memory. Pastor Lively is being put on trial for allegedly perpetrating “international crimes against humanity” harming the people in Uganda. The case is being brought by the far-left New York-based Soros-funded Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR).

Pastor Scott Lively

Lively’s only “crime” seems to be his outspoken criticism of the homosexual movement. The lawsuit is not based on anything Lively (or anyone he’s ever met) actually did. It is simply an outrageous concoction of accusations based on his pro-family meetings, writings, and conversations, which took place on a handful of occasions in Uganda and in the US. Furthermore, Lively has not been charged with any actual crime in either country.

CCR filed the case on behalf of a homosexual group in Uganda called Sexual Minorities of Uganda (“SMUG”), which claims to have been harshly persecuted and that Lively ultimately caused that.

This will have a disastrous affect on the entire pro-family movement in America if successful.

Case should have been derailed by recent Supreme Court ruling

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts in 2012. Lively’s Liberty Counsel legal team countered with a response and motion to dismiss, thoroughly refuting all the charges.

The US Federal Courthouse in Springfield on the day of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Note the crowd of homosexual activists demonstrating in front against Pastor Lively.

The court’s hearing on the motion to dismiss, held on January 7, 2013, was presided by Judge Ponsor. Lively’s lawyers clearly indisputably demolished the plaintiff’s points. CCR appeared weak and disorganized and as we reported, Ponsor appeared biased even then.

Angry demonstration against Scott Lively in front of the courthouse on the day of the hearing. NOTE: At far right speaking in microphone, member of SMUG contingent who came from Uganda. Second from right is Luke Ryan, local counsel for CCR and activist who had been in courtroom earlier.

In April, after the hearing on the motion to dismiss but before the ruling was issued, a startling thing happened. The US Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Kiobel case which essentially nullified the Alien Tort Act. That Act had been the main pillar of the CCR’s attempt to charge Lively, a US citizen, for alleged acts in a foreign country. As weak as CCR’s case had been, it seemed now infinitely weaker as nearly all existing suits around the country involving the Alien Tort Act were quickly dismissed. Everything seemed in place for a slam-dunk dismissal of this absurd case, as well.

Extremely hostile ruling by Ponsor rejecting motion to dismiss

But then on August 14, 2013, the nightmare happened. Judge Ponsor issued his extremely hostile ruling that flatly rejected every one of Lively’s defenses andaccepted all of CCR’s charges against him as legitimate. Ponsor refused to acknowledge that the Kiobel ruling affected this case! Among many other things, Ponsor’s ruling labeled Lively’s speeches as “offensive conduct” and compared Lively to the Nazi war criminals in WWII. (We have a full analysis of that ruling coming up.)

Lively’s lawyers (and the rest of us) were floored. This case itself makes no sense at all, except as a means to severely punish Lively for his views on homosexuality and to send a strong message to the rest of the pro-family movement.

In addition, this now opens the door for an intrusive personal “discovery” processagainst Lively by CCR’s lawyers in preparation for the actual trial against him. In fact, that process has already begun.

An appeal against this particular kind of ruling asking for a higher court to dismiss the case, known as a Writ of Mandamus, is very unusual, but Lively’s attorneys have filed a quite thorough writ. It is still in process.

Will our new findings have an effect on it? We hope so.

Ponsor’s troubling background relative to this case

What is really going on that could explain Ponsor’s absurd ruling? Recently, MassResistance has found out that there’s a disturbing undercurrent to this story.

The homosexual movement is infamous for its success at shrewd “judge shopping” to push their agenda in the US court system. Ponsor was clearly a perfect choice. Ponsor is openly liberal and a protégé of pro-homosexual Judge Joseph Tauro, who recently ruled to strike down DOMA in the federal court. But that’s just his more visible profile.

MassResistance has recently learned more on Ponsor’s shocking background. This information was not known to the defendants when the case began.

An objective observer would question his ability to be impartial in light of these facts:

Outwardly supported radical homosexual movement very early on.Ponsor’s bias favoring the homosexual movement goes back several years. At his judicial induction ceremony on Feb. 14, 1994 (after being appoint by Pres. Bill Clinton), Ponsor told the assembled crowd, “We have a proud, vibrant gay and lesbian community” in Western Massachusetts. At that time, it was a particularly unusual statement to make, especially for a judge.

Made indirect donations to plaintiff’s organization. For the last two years Ponsor and his wife have contributed to the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts (CFWF). CFWF has donated money to the plaintiff’s organization, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005.

Revealed bias regarding eastern African peoples (and SMUG). Several members of SMUG attended the hearing and sat in the courtroom. During the hearing, Ponsor remarked, “I’m pleased to adjudicate issues that affect the people of Uganda,” and added that that it was “good to see the people whose interests are directly affected.” It was an odd statement for a judge in a US courtroom to make. As a young man, Ponsor lived in Kenya (which borders Uganda) for over a year teaching English. He speaks Swahili, the official language of Uganda. He appears to be invested in “protecting” that area against those he feel would “harm” the people there.

Has homosexual issues in his family. Ponsor’s former (second) wife, the mother of his two children (and whom he divorced in 1992) now lives a lesbian lifestyle and is “married” to a female Massachusetts judge. Among other things, she has written for the “Gay and Lesbian Review.”

Ponsor’s daughter wrote on an Internet blog that she “came out” as a lesbian in 1999, along with other references to lesbian activity.

Ponsor’s first wife was heavily involved with pro-lesbian feminist groups during the time they were married.

Has troubling ties to plaintiff’s local counsel, who is also a radical activist. The local opposing counsel in this case, Luke Ryan, worked as a law clerk for Ponsor from 2005-2007 and appears to be close friends with him. Ryan is an active supporter of Arise for Social Justice, a thuggish pro-homosexual group which, along with “Occupy Springfield,”has terrorized Pastor Lively’s downtown coffee house mission. Ryan is also involved with Out Now, a homosexual group that demonstrated against Lively at the court hearing.

Luke Ryan, local opposing counsel and radical activist, clerked for Judge Ponsor for two years.

In addition to all that is Ponsor’s outrageously activist judicial philosophy. This past June Ponsor told the local Springfield Republican newspaper: “At some point I realized that judges are the unappointed legislators of mankind, and what we do is just as creative.” It’s exactly what John Adams warned us about.

Website for local radical homosexual group “Out Now.” Notice their vitriol against Pastor Scott Lively continues. Opposing attorney Luke Ryan is active with this group.

Federal law on the requirements of impartiality

The federal law and the Code of Conduct is pretty clear, as it should be:

The federal law 28 United States Code 455(a) Supp. IV, 1974 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The website for the Code of Conduct for United States Judges adds:

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.

Given that Judge Ponsor’s personal background facts were not disclosed to the defendant, and that they clearly show Ponsor is not impartial on homosexuality and other pertinent issues, he should have been disqualified from this case.

This absurd case has become a nightmarish miscarriage of justice. It represents the worst aspects of the “homo-fascism” that is gripping our country, which aims to utterly destroy anyone who disagrees with or opposes the sexual radical agenda.

Federal Judge Michael Ponsor should have been disqualified from case.

We will continue to cover this for you.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on MassResistance.org.

Satan driven out of Florida’s Capitol Building

December 20, 2013/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

Multiple news sources are reporting that the Florida Department of Management Services emailed The Satanic Temple on Wednesday, telling the group its proposed display of an angel falling from heaven into an open fire was “grossly offensive.”

Co-founder Lucien Greaves says the group asked what was offensive, acknowledging they might be willing to alter the display, but they didn’t get a response Thursday.

Perhaps President Obama will allow The Satanic Temple to setup its display in the White House?

According to The Satanic Temple website:

“The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people. In addition, we embrace practical common sense and justice. As Satanists we all should be guided by our conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by our individual wills. We believe that this is the hope of all mankind and the highest aspiration of humanity. As an organized religion, we feel it is our function to actively provide outreach, to lead by example, and to participate public affairs wheresoever the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights.”

It seems President Obama and many in Washington would agree with the statement “[W]e all should be guided by our conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by our individual wills.” After all, individual will is what has driven God from our schools and the public square. It is individual will that has given us the immorality we witness daily.

Many believe it is individual will that drives public policy at every level of government, not the will of the people.

Perhaps Satan has found a home and his new zip code is 20004?

The Robertson Family Official Statement: We cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm!

December 20, 2013/in Culture War, Featured/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

The Robertson family issued their official statement on the Duck Commander website:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

Glenn Beck has offered the Robertson’s a place on his TV channel. “[All the other networks] will fold to pressure,” Beck said. “They will all fold to sponsors. They will all fold to money because they are all in over their eyeballs are debt … the only reason why Phil was put on hiatus and not the rest is because it is a money-printing machine.”

He said the Robertsons would likely end their involvement with A&E over its treatment of the family patriarch, and he suggested they each call GQ with a simple message: “I agree with Phil.”

I am sure others will as well. The Robertson’s will continue to be successful because of their beliefs and values. They are what makes America great!

A&E Boots Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” After Calling Homosexuality Illogical

December 19, 2013/in Culture War, Featured/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been suspended from his own television show after calling homosexuality illogical, while proffering his male viewpoint preferring female anatomy to that of other men.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus, ” says Phil Robertson. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what II’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

The Arts & Entertainment Network, better known as A&E, gave Robertson the boot Wednesday after learning of his remarks.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

Violence lies behind the Burqa

December 17, 2013/in Commentary, Culture War/by Jerry Gordon

In February 2012, we posted on the arrest of an Iraqi émigré family in Phoenix for an attempted honor killing of their daughter:

Honor shame incidents appear to be of near epidemic proportions among Iraqi Muslim immigrants in Phoenix. As we noted in our earlier post, an Iraqi Muslim immigrant father had run down and killed his daughter and was convicted in a Maricopa County Court Case last year in another honor killing. CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, engaged in taqiyya when he told the media that the Arizona honor shame violence . . . were “isolated incidents”. His bald-faced comment was: “”We condemn any false justification for domestic violence or abuse based on religious beliefs.”

These were evidence of a history of high profile honor shame killings and violence perpetrated on Muslim women that have occurred in Canada and the US. We had the conviction in a Kingston , Ontario courtroom of the Canadian Afghan Shafia family for horrific quadruple honor murders of another wife and three daughters in a polygamous Montreal household. We had the murder of a divorced Muslim woman in Tampa, Florida. There was the murder of a daughter in Atlanta by her Pakistani émigré father. The country was riveted by the tragic death of two daughters of an American wife killed by their father, a fugitive Egyptian cab driver in Texas. There was the ghastly murder of wife in Buffalo by the founder of a ‘moderate’ Muslim TV channel. Besides the Shafia family in Montreal, we had the death of a young Muslim girl at the hands of her father and brother in Mississauga, Ontario.

But it is not just Canada and the US in the West, honor shame violence has even occurred down under. That was revealed in a recent incident involving the savage beating of a Muslim teenager reported in The New Zealand Herald, “Burqa hid injuries of teen repeatedly bashed – police”:

A teenage girl police believe was beaten at home was forced to hide her facial injuries behind a burqa, while members of the Muslim community are alleged to have hushed up the abuse.

Her injuries included a broken nose, damaged teeth and extensive bruising. Police claim the 15-year-old was subjected to sustained physical abuse from at least one family member over two or more months.

“The case was brought to police attention when a school friend of the girl was made aware of the abuse and was able to borrow a cell phone from another child at a neighboring school to call 111,” child protection officer Detective Sarah Boniface said. “The girl was not able to get access to a phone herself.”

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, prominent American feminist and fellow of The Middle East Forum, is an advocate for banning the Burqa. Prompted by this New Zealand incident, she responded in a FoxNews op ed, “Beneath the burqa — a bruised and badly beaten teenager”. She cites the burqa [as]:

A sensory deprivation isolation chamber, (sensory deprivation is used as a form of torture); a burqa is also an ambulatory body bag and I oppose this with all my mind and heart as a violation of human and women’s rights.

I am no fan of the burqa and have even argued that the West should ban it.

I believe that the kind of men who expect and demand that women wear burqas in the West today are likely to be radical Islamists; as such, they may be more likely to engage in acts of military jihad here. The Koran absolutely does not mandate the burqa or, for that matter, a face covering of any kind.

In her Fox News op ed Chesler cites the extreme example of quadruple honor killings committed by the convicted Afghan Canadian Shafia family. Chesler drew attention to the moral equivalence of “omerta” in Muslim families. Chesler said, “that sustained physical abuse and psychological cruelty often precedes or is correlated with a subsequent honor killing”. In the case of the savage beating of the Muslim teenager in New Zealand, hidden from public view by a Burqa, Chesler commented that the police became aware that “members of the community in positions of power and trust knew that the abuse was serious but did not help the girl.”

Chesler knows about the potential violence committed against Muslim women first hand. As a young American Jewish bride of an Afghan Muslim husband she was virtually imprisoned in a polygamous Afghan Muslim household after her US passport was taken away from her upon arrival in Kabul. She cites that episode from five decades ago as a motivating factor behind her career as a prominent feminist and opponent of Sharia honor shame violence, often hidden behind burqas. Chesler reveals this defining moment of her Afghan experience in a recently published memoir, An American Bride in Kabul. We will publish both a review of Chesler’s latest book and an interview with the author in the January 2014 New English Review.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.